On Point blog, page 9 of 21
COA clarifies summary judgment procedure and the “continuing denial of visitation” grounds for TPR
Juneau County D.H.S. v. S.G.M., 2019AP553-556, 6/6/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
This appeal presents two issues of TPR law: (1) Whether a county must file an affidavit in support of its summary judgment motion; and (2) Whether Juneau County satisfied the requirement of §48.415(4)(a), which governs the “continuing denial of visitation.”
Harmless error and a “reasonable reading” of the record doomed dad’s appeal from TPR order
Dane County DHS v. T.S., 2019AP415, 5/9/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
At the grounds phase of this TPR case, T.S. challenged the circuit court’s application of §48.415(2), the CHIPS ground for terminating his parental rights. He also argued that at the disposition phase the circuit court ignored one of the “best interests of the child” factors required by §48.426(3) and substituted in an improper factor. He lost on both counts.
If 2 guys have sex with a woman who becomes pregnant, both better assume parental responsibility
E.M.K. v. Z.T.R., 2018AP1896, District 2, 5/1/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
That’s the upshot of this court of appeals decision. Before terminating a biological father’s parental rights, there must be a finding that he “failed to assume parental responsibility” under §48.415(6). But what if there is a dispute about whether he is actually the biological father of the child? The court of appeals holds that if only one other guy was having sex with the mother when she became pregnant then the unverified, biological father had “reason to believe” he was in fact the father and should assume parental responsibility for the child.
TPR based on prior child abuse conviction wasn’t unconstitutional
Racine County HSD v. L.R.H.-J., 2018AP2065, District 2, 3/6/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
L.R.H.-J. was convicted of child neglect in causing the death of her first child in 2005. In 2015 she had another child, “Baby J,” who was immediately taken from her and a CHIPS proceeding commenced. In 2017 her rights to Baby J were terminated, after the circuit court granted summary judgment at the grounds phase, citing §48.415(9m). The court of appeals rejects facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the use of that statute against her with respect to Baby J.
Partial defense win! Challenges to sec. 48.415(1)(a)’s pleading requirements fail, but summary judgment reversed
Brown County Human Services v. B.P and T.F., 2019 WI App 18; case activity
T.F. argued that when the Department seeks to terminate parental rights on the grounds of abandonment in a case where the child is out of the home and a CHIPS order is in place, it must proceed under §48.415(1)(a)2., rather than (a)3. T.F. also argued that allowing the Department to proceed under (a)3 would result in an Equal Protection violation. The court of appeals rejected these arguments but held that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment with respect to T.F. because material facts were in dispute over whether she had good cause for abandoning her daughter, Allie.
Partial summary judgment, best interests determination upheld
D.R. v. B.D., 2018AP1731 & 2018AP1732, District 3, 2/20/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
B.D.’s challenges to the order terminating his parental rights come up short.
TPR supported by sufficient evidence
State v. S.M.T., 2018AP2113, 2018AP2114, & 2018AP2115, District 1, 1/29/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects S.M.T.’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence terminating her parental rights based on the children’s continuing need of protective services and S.M.T.’s failure to assume parental responsibility.
No prejudice caused by counsel’s failure to object to admission father’s criminal record at TPR trial
State v. L.V., 2018AP1065, 1/29/19, District 1 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
The defense moved to exclude evidence of L.V.’s criminal record prior to his daughter’s birth. The State told the court it had no intention of introducing his criminal record at trial. But when L.V. took the stand, guess who started asking about his criminal record?
Sufficient evidence supported finding that dad failed to assume parental responsibility for kids
State v. K.L., 2018AP2180-2183, 1/23/19, District 1; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
After the circuit court terminated K.L.’s parental rights to 4 of his kids, he appealed arguing that the finding that he failed to assume parental responsibility for his kids was clearly erroneous. The circuit court focused only on the period after the kids were removed from home not on his actions throughout their lives. The court of appeals disagreed:
Challenges to termination of parental rights rejected
State v. J.A., 2018AP1257, District 1, 12/4/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.A.’s parental rights were terminated on the ground he failed to assume parental responsibility. He argues the CHIPS order itself created a substantial parental relationship, thereby precluding the state from using that ground to terminate his rights. Alternatively, he argues the CHIPS order made it impossible for him to assume parental responsibility. Neither argument succeeds.